So, B of A and the $5.00 debit card
 

Check it, B. Eff that Ess. IF you don't wanna pay the $5.00 monthly fee that all banks are gonna start charging then you are gonna have to do money the old school way.

Go to bank with your checkbook on Thursday or Friday or whatever fucking day you want. Write a check for how much money you are going to need to spend that week and get the cash. Make the teller do the fucking work.

If you need to purchase shit online or from a catalog, then walk your ass down to the post office and get a friggin money order and send that shit to whoever has the shit you want. In a couple of days they'll get the m.o. and then send you your shit.

It worked great for decades that way, it can work again.

douches

I know nothing about this situation, but I do feel your pain.

No UK supermarket/ High Street Store will accept a cheque as a valid form of payment.
They may still do so online or for some bills. But I don't have a cheque book, so I'm hazy on details (not issued on my account any more).

I pay a debt every month over the counter at the Post Office IN CASH and a 50p charge is added. AND it takes 3 days to clear. Wait, what?
50p is not much, but it's a bloody cheek given the clearance time.
It would be higher if I paid using my debit card.

Oh and I can't get money over the counter from my own bank.
Well - I can. But it has to be over £100 (which I never have to spare). And over a certain amount (which I have not memorisied as it is so unlikely) I have to contact them in advance anyway.

So if I have £9.99 balance I have to go to the Post Office to withdraw it because the minimum amount from an ATM is £10.
Why is going to the Post Office worse than going to the bank?
If you have to ask, you've obviously never queued in an English Post Office. My experience? Minimum 20 minute wait.

Who the fuck still banks with Bank of America anymore anyway? Dump their asses for a proper credit union.

You are goddamn skippy!

I am banking with a credit union, I was just replying in general to the world about a news item I just read and neglected to link to. I am a big self involved lazy lump. I'm halfway back to paleolithic times anyway. I've been preparing sinew for my bow and shit. Besides, everyone up here takes checks anyway, even from me.

TANGENT

Don't use a debit card for online shopping, mmkay.

/TANGENT

I use my debit card for all my online transactions (the ones that don't take PayPal) because it is free.

My prepay credit card is £5 per month or £1 per transaction.

If the worst happened and someone "cleared out my bank account" they wouldn't get much.
Yes it would devestate me at the time, but I save £60 a year this way.
Thieves'd be bloody lucky to get that much!

I tried the two local credits unions. I'll use them when they have online banking that isn't a god-damned muppet-fucking piece of shit.

my favorite thing about our credit union's web page is the extra apostrophe's.

I'm sure they're good at handling money though.

For a bank run by amateurs.


I kid.

Volunteer amateurs at that! It's some kind of co-op.

BofA has to make back the money they lost giving accounts to illegals without social security numbers and demanding rectal exams of American citizens with social security numbers somehow.

Fewer and fewer businesses accept checks anymore. I am no longer allowed to pay my rent by check, for example. if I try to use my alternative solution, paying through my bank's online check pay ... it's considered a check and won't be accepted (incidentally, my bank and the complex's bank are the SAME bank, and it would be an electronic transfer). if I pay by credit card there is a $50 surcharge added onto my already exorbitant rent.They stopped accepting money orders two years ago. And so, I have to use their online money transferer. Bastards.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...t-card/245935/

tl;dr: Dick Durbin & Congress is responsible for this change. Credit Unions will eventually be charging too, as they are affected by it no less than BoA.

Bold prediction that I don't agree with because the credit *union* has an entirely different profit motive than BofA. What it costs to run the credit union and what it costs to run BofA is completely different.

Not surprised in the least. The banks were going to find a way to recoup their profits. The Bill was smoke and mirrors after they totally F**ked up the Fannie-Freddie thing. I feel it was more of a way to deflect attention away from his indiscretions and try to show his base that he was working in their best interest. Backfire.

Washington Examiner says it's Wal-Mart's fault

So it was Banks vs. Wal-Mart fighting for Dick Durbin's favorite lobbyist's favor... and the consumer lost.

I don't agree with your conclusion that the consumer lost.

In this clash of the titans, as your article casts it, who pays the costs for interchange transactions has been shifted from the merchants to the customer. Well, that doesn't wash.

ALL the costs are borne by the customer, aren't they? Wal-Mart's not minting any money to give to BofA, are they? But the biggest break, no, the biggest assumption made by the author of the story is that the money once paid by the merchant will now be paid by the debit-card-swiper. And that's just not true. It will be for BofA debit card users, but Wal-Mart's got customers that pay from lots of different sources, not just BofA.

This story is about BofA making the bold (in terms of plain talking) business decision to start charging for a service that previously did not incur a fee. To "blame" it on Wal-Mart is a bit silly. To say that Wal-Mart will reap substantial benefits is perfectly fine. To say that the customer "lost" is also a stretch. BofA customers now have another reason to assess whether or not they're getting fair value for their money.

For me, that answer was hell no. I've known that answer for years. But, BofA's got lots going for it, and I wish them success. I just think that they're going to face some serious resistance for making this choice.

Were not the debit cards pushed by banks? So they could save a ton on paper work.
Someone needs to look at restarting the check verify outfits again.

Well, merchants will either pocket the money or lower prices, depending on the competitiveness of prices in their business, so everyone but BofA debit card users will be unaffected or better off. If enough people drop their BofA debit cards, they may have to drop the charge, or provide some sort of service to make their debit cards more attractive.

What other banks and area credit unions plan to do so far, by the Oregonian

(summary: other major banks are considering fees, no small banks or credit unions in OR are considering it)

GO DUCKS !

From your link:

That is a lot of money to operate such a network. I understand it is not all profit, that it's just revenue. But I don't think that they take a loss on the operation. Card payment networks have been in place for years, these are mature operations that don't have startup costs, communication costs for other similarly large networks, cell phones for example, have gone down.

Also, this aspect of the law is only for operations that have more than $10 billion in assets. Meaning that for a smaller bank, these caps on interchange fees don't apply. For all the hullabaloo surrounding the importance of helping small businesses. Well, this is exactly that. Compared to banks that have more than $10 billion dollars that is. Apparently my understanding of what constitutes "small business" needs some recalibration.

The banks subject to the restriction, they'll try to recover the revenue no longer available to them via the interchange fees, exactly what BofA is doing. I see this as an example of how we can make rules that correct the enormous imbalance that is currently in favor of BIG MONEY. Money attracts money, and this one change flies in the face of that.

that must be why the credit union wanted me to take my accounts elsewhere

so they wouldn't get dinged by this fee

bwaaaahahahahahahahha


No, really.

Other banks are already doing this as well. There are at least two others doing it in test markets @ $3.00 and several more about to roll it out as well.

I say we go back to an all-cash system. It will confuse the teenagers and give black market products a much-needed boost.

I like this unintended consequence of the Durbin amendment.

I don't think its right that businesses are held hostage to the swipe fees that banks charge them, because they would lose customers if they started denying cards. It feels sort of like a monopoly. But that's not necessarily true for bank customers. They can shop around for banks that either don't charge fees or at least charge the lowest fee.

I shop at a lot of places that don't accept cards or checks. Cash only. If you are good enough you can command those terms.

They make awesome pizza.

My kids' preschool over the summer would add 3% to the tuition cost if you paid with a credit card, or 5% if it was any kind of "rewards" card.

Prolly what they get charged to process the transaction.

My local shop does not accept any card, but has a cashpoint outside, and a sub Post Office Branch inside open from 09.00-1800 (so I can make withdrawals of under £10!) as well as posting various things overseas :)

It's unusual here to have a convenience store which refuses any cards for any purchase, but Mr Shah was old when I shopped there as a child, and he's a canny one. It might surprise the occasional passer-through, but everyone locally knows he doesn't take cards or cheques, or give credit, so his terms are simply accepted.

Most other small establishments will only take cards for £5 or over.
S'okay by me - I make small purchases and bus journeys, so even with a debit card I have to carry cash. If I have it to start with.

For every regulation the government makes on any industry, in this case banking, which takes away profit because of increased government control or taxation will be passed on to the consumer one way or another, immediately or over time. Government control and meddling of this sort will always get a big FAIL.

Including the DO NOT CALL lists ?

oh, go on, you anarchist you.

Especially, since politicians exempted themselves from the Do Not Call List laws.

rat bastards.

Oh, but that will not matter much when Obama gets to give all those cell numbers to bill collectors...

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2011/...ss-cell-phone/

That and Obamacare...

Somewhere between :eek: and :facepalm:

Staggering shamelessness.

That's just a poor description, third hand, of the tip of the iceberg.

Here's the rest of the iceberg, first hand, friends.


....


Um, actually, there's a helluva lot more ice down here.. I may have misspoken.

Google Hosted News
By EILEEN AJ CONNELLY,AP Personal Finance Writer

Chase drops debit card fee, BofA to adjust plans

Seriously, the main point of the legislation that makes this a story at all is that the fees have to be published, promoted at a much more visible level than before. That's why they "made a big deal" of it, they were following the law, not trying to win customers.

Others are learning from this and apparently NOT choosing to implement such a fee, and by extension, not having to make a big deal about announcing it.

Hee hee. I love it when 'unintended consequences' work out.

:D

Saturday, November 5th is the day...

Credit Union Times

For Bank Transfer Day, It’s All CU Hands on Deck

How's that "Hopey Changey Thing" working out for you all? Any new jobs out there?

It's official. No fee.

They'll probably try to get you some other way, but it worked out this time.

TD bank has stopped allowing customers to withdraw money for free at any other ATM's. To use your debit card and receive cash, you must go to their branch.
I'm done. I found a CU that I can join and will be doing so very soon.

ha! ya beat me to it.

so, to me, the moral of the story is if you *tell people* what the costs of a particular service are, they can make informed decisions. And the business can make subsequent decisions about the costs of the same service. This is how markets work best, not free, not laisez-faire, but mixed markets. Markets that have some sensible regulation, in this case, a requirement for disclosure of the fees.

Is there anyone here that holds the opinion that BofA is suffering because of this arc of events? Certainly they'll have to look further and harder for a replacement for the reduction of revenue from the results of these events. But is there anyone who would contend that the consumers were harmed by these events? That anyone could not get the banking / money services they need because of these regulations?

I don't think so. And I think the real but relatively tiny harm suffered by BofA is insignificant compared to the benefits to their customer base. Indeed to the customers of other financial service institutions who will also heard what the market has spoken.

Good!

How much of these banks revenue is drawn from these accounts versus home, car, business loans?
I was under the impression the loans were where they made more money.

Yes, the CU's are putting on more staff for the HCT.

Merc, will we see you there on Saturday ?

Not a freaking chance! :D

So, while everyone is arguing about five bucks here and there, it seems B of A is positioning to pillage the treasury. Again. Or maybe not. I'm not absolutely sure.

This article from Bloomberg describes the situation quite dryly - disagrement bewteen different regulators about B of A transferring huge amounts of derivatives (you know, the highly volatile toys financiers love to play with) from the investment bank to the retail bank.

But I learned of that from this article from "The daily bail" (partisan, one sided, but not necesarily false). Their interpretation:


Even Bloomberg is not positive about this.

I don't properly understand all this, but it seems the banks are attempting another round of privatise-the-profit, socialise-the-loss; on a much larger scale than last time. This is in the several tens of trillions of dollars range.

Suppose BofA announces, hey Washington, pony up three trillion or everyone loses their savings....

This was the whole point of the Glass-Stegal act (The American Banking act of 1933) - to separate retail banks from riskier invetment banks to prevent 1929-33 style crashes. That act was repealed in '99, disaster rapidly followed. The system was band-aided, but now the banks are trying to game the system.


What was that someone was saying about credit unions?

That makes the news that TD Bank is now charging a $9 savings account fee almost meaningless. CNN

What is the full name of TD Bank ? The website is non-disclosure

Oh, a reminder.
Saturday is "Bank Transfer Day" at your local credit union.
Merc sends his regrets he will not be attending... he will be missed.

It is a plan right out of the cigarette industry playbook. When state taxes on cigarettes increased (due to inflation), the cigarette industry would also increase their profit margin significantly. State taxes rose so little that the actual tax (with inflation) was decreasing. But cigarette profit margins eventually exceeded 50%.

To put that into perspective, Wal-Mart's profit margins are closer to 2%.

Now that 'evil' government has required more sensible fees on debit cards, then raising all other banking fees can be blamed on that 'evil' government. Cigarette industry played the exact same game. And most people foolishly thought higher cigarette prices were due to state taxes.

Banking industry has a long history of stifling innovation while reaping massive profits? Productive industries do not increase costs when always innovating. Remember what they teach banking executives in business schools. Only profits are important. The product be damned.

Bank of America is quite profitable in all sectors except one. The one that Ken Lewis spent $billions on without doing any due consideration. His ego was proof that the expense was justified. He bought Countrywide Financial for $4billion. Due to that expense and much more $billions in bad loans, BoA must screw everyone else rather than admit a grossly overpaid executive is the reason for this next decade of losses.

Lewis did exactly what is taught in the business schools and advocated on Wall Street. Since so many banks are so ill managed, fees must be charged to you. As Obama said before he took office, we will be paying for the next decade what was openly advocated on Wall Street and in Washington in the 2000s. I believe we call that Mission Accomplished.

TD Bank, NA (formally Commerce Bank and Portland Savings) is somehow related to TD Ameritrade (the discount broker) and TD Waterhouse.

Here are the facts on Reg D:

You may make any number of other transfers IN PERSON without incurring a penalty imposed by the government. Of course, some banks charge you to see a teller, which I consider evil. Hie thee to the nearest Credit Union POST HASTE.

I have sometimes bumped up against this Reg D. I have sometimes had the fee waived. The fee does NOT apply to checking accounts, but only to savings and money market accounts. The intention, to my mind, is to discourage using the interest bearing accounts like checking accounts.

So I can use any name I want for TD...

Tweedle Dum
Tweedle Dee
Tottering Drunk
Toronto Dominion

TD Bank = Toronto-Dominion Bank

Yes Classic, I found it via tw's post.
Check out my link on TD Bank.